Oh no another PFT thread

[secks]

Ty Webb:

One more thing. I hope you also oppose having resumes walked in and other forms of favoritism. If you don't, then you're being inconsistent. Why? These practices also deprive qualified pilots of jobs, which is why you claim that PFT/PFJ is bad.

 

[Ty Webb]

If you really need someone to explain to you the difference between a personal recommendation and PFT, well, sorry, it's not gonna be me. I don't have that kind of time.

Maybe after you have been around the industry long enough to shed some of your naivete, we could have a meaningful discourse, but right now it would be a big waste of time for both of us.

Good luck.

 

[secks]

If you really need someone to explain to you the difference between a personal recommendation and PFT, well, sorry, it's not gonna be me. I don't have that kind of time.

Maybe after you have been around the industry long enough to shed some of your naivete, we could have a meaningful discourse, but right now it would be a big waste of time for both of us.

Good luck.

Something tells me you just don't feel like explaining the logic of your position because you know you're on shaky ground. If you can't argue the points, be a man and admit it.

 

[bobbysamd]

Working one's way up the ranks v. paying one's way up

Are you so naive as to expect every budding pilot out there to eat $hit just because you did? This sort of "logic" leads me to believe that you resent pilots who've had it easier than you.

I certainly would have more respect for an individual who came up from a hardscrabble background than one who was born with the silver spoon in his mouth and only had to ask for what he wanted or desired.

Look at it this way. Everyone knows the various stories of the 300-hour wonders whom United has hired, off and on, in recent years. I do not have all the specifics regarding affirmative action aspects of these hires, but how would anyone who has worked his/her way up ranks feel about these people? You ask yourself, how do these people get hired? The ones who do most of the asking are the ones who have sacrificed and tried their utmost to get that job. There are qualfied, legitimate pilots who apply to United and other majors for years and years and who are never called. The "life is unfair, get used to it" counter to this argument is unacceptable.

Well, guess who is hurt by "paying dues"? The person paying the dues. You expect newbie pilots to place themselves on the sacrificial altar in order for another pilot to earn a good wage. Isn't a little selfish to expect strangers to delay gratification just so you can get a job?

(emphasis added)

Do I hear violins playing? So what's so bad about paying dues? There are people who pay dues in all walks of life. Plenty of them might complain, but plenty will say that they benefited from it.

I submit the P-F-Ters do not pay dues. They only pay for the job. Compare them with the United 300-hour wonders about whom I wrote above. Paying for training and paying dues are not the same.

 

[secks]

Re: Working one's way up the ranks v. paying one's way up

I certainly would have more respect for an individual who came up from a hardscrabble background than one who was born with the silver spoon in his mouth and only had to ask for what he wanted or desired.

I also would have more respect for said individual. My main beef with Ty is that he and his boss turned the "silver-spooners"/PFJs away at the door because they didn't do aviation the hard way. That's just not right. Judge these people on the basis of their experience, PFJ or not. That's professionalism. Would you turn away an employee just because he came from a wealthy family or attended college without having to work on the side?

Look at it this way. Everyone knows the various stories of the 300-hour wonders whom United has hired, off and on, in recent years. I do not have all the specifics regarding affirmative action aspects of these hires, but how would anyone who has worked his/her way up ranks feel about these people? You ask yourself, how do these people get hired? The ones who do most of the asking are the ones who have sacrificed and tried their utmost to get that job. There are qualfied, legitimate pilots who apply to United and other majors for years and years and who are never called. The "life is unfair, get used to it" counter to this argument is unacceptable.(emphasis added)

As an aside, do you have any more information on these 300 hour hires? How the hell do people land that sort of a deal? Is it only for minorities in order to fill quotas? I've heard that this sort of practice is common in Australia and Europe.

Regarding the 300 hour wonders ... well, life is unfair. Some people have family members in the biz, others have resumes walked in, some come from wealthy families which foot the bills, etc. Nothing will change this. Sure, I'd slightly resent the 300 hour copilot, but I wouldn't hold his decision against him. Only a fool would turn down such an opportunity.

Do I hear violins playing? So what's so bad about paying dues? There are people who pay dues in all walks of life. Plenty of them might complain, but plenty will say that they benefited from it.

What's bad about paying dues is having to pay them because our predecessors did. It should be up to the individual to make that decision. Some people avoid paying dues by exploiting a connection within a company (resume walk-in, family member, etc), others pay for a right seat, some CFI while living on family money, etc. I really don't think there's much of a difference between these situations. Again, it's all about the experience. If some guy paid for a right seat after racking up 300 hours, and earned a few thousand hours at his new job, what's the problem?

I submit the P-F-Ters do not pay dues. They only pay for the job. Compare them with the United 300-hour wonders about whom I wrote above. Paying for training and paying dues are not the same.

Nobody ever said that they were the same. If they were, nobody would bother doing PFT/PFJ. You're right in that these people don't pay their dues in the same way that CFIs and freight dogs do. However, in the vast majority of cases, PFJ experience should be just as valid. Regardless of whether you paid for the job, once you're there, you're flying.

 

[bobbysamd]

Paying dues v. simply paying

I've heard that this sort of practice is common in Australia and Europe.

Many foreign airlines do business differently than in the U.S. When they need pilots, they look for people who have never flown but have potential. They hire them and train them their way at their own academies and/or with contract vendors. The training can be compared to military flight training. No hour is wasted. By the time they hit the line, they are extremely well-trained to do their job.

What's bad about paying dues is having to pay them because our predecessors did.

Awwwww. So what? Some of life's best lessons are the toughest. Sometimes, the easiest way is not the best way. . . . .

If some guy paid for a right seat after racking up 300 hours, and earned a few thousand hours at his new job, what's the problem?

The hours mean less to many because the opportunity was purchased. Here again, anyone can buy a job; who needs qualfications and experience? Not everyone can be hired into a job, because being hired - without paying for it - presupposes that the hiree is qualified and experienced, United 300-hour wonders excepted.

In the vast majority of cases, PFJ experience should be just as valid. Regardless of whether you paid for the job, once you're there, you're flying.

See comment above. How you got the job matters. Also see my comments elsewhere about why buying any kind of a job in any field is bad - for you.

 

[Ty Webb]

Re: Re: Working one's way up the ranks v. paying one's way up

The reason I said I wasnlt going to waste time with you, Secks, is because you seem to lack a basic understanding of the factors at play. You think that you can stroke a check to make up for your shortcomings. It is clear to me, from reading your posts, that you are either very immature, or lack certain principles that render you unable to see a moral argument.

That is why I will not argue with you.

For clarification, what I said was:

1) The CP at my first 135 threw GIA resumes into the garbage can or put them on the wall of shame because "These guys made a paying job disappear".

2) The CP at my first jet 135 showed guys the door who offered to "work for free to get experience".

I then said, if you had two equal candidates, one who "paid his dues" and one who had paid money to bypass getting that experience . . . which one would you choose?

I know which one i would choose.

And, BTW, I didn't have to "eat sh1t", I refused to. Luckily for the airlines, there are always guys like you ready to eat plenty, and are even willing to pay for the privilege. That's the saddest part, and why regional pilots make less than bus drivers.

Check back with us after 3 or 4 years, when the newness has rubbed off, and you realize that it is a job.

 

[secks]

Re: Paying dues v. simply paying

The hours mean less to many because the opportunity was purchased. Here again, anyone can buy a job; who needs qualfications and experience? Not everyone can be hired into a job, because being hired - without paying for it - presupposes that the hiree is qualified and experienced, United 300-hour wonders excepted.

Qualifications still apply. We're talking about applicants who are legally qualified and are willing to compete with more experienced pilots by working at a reduced wage or paying for the seat. You seem to think that competition stops with experience, but neglect to consider the effect that pricing has on labor demand.

The reason I said I wasnlt going to waste time with you, Secks, is because you seem to lack a basic understanding of the factors at play. You think that you can stroke a check to make up for your shortcomings. It is clear to me, from reading your posts, that you are either very immature, or lack certain principles that render you unable to see a moral argument.

Wait a second. Of course people fork over cash in order to remedy personal shortcomings. I'm hungry, so I buy food. PFT/PFJs need hours, so they buy a seat or work for low wages. They don't want to CFI or freight dog for years in order to get hours. You think that's the right way to do aviation. Life isn't that simple.

If you consider PFT/PFJ to be immoral because 1) it deprives better-qualified pilots of jobs and 2) it results in the applicant earning an undeserved job, then you must also feel that walking resumes in or getting a family member a job is immoral. It creates the same "problems" that PFT/PFJ does.

I then said, if you had two equal candidates, one who "paid his dues" and one who had paid money to bypass getting that experience . . . which one would you choose?

Depends on the quality of flight experience. If one of the applicants earned 1000 hours flying patterns in a 152 whereas the other flew jets or turbos for a PFJ outfit, then the PFJer is superior in terms of flight experience (at least that's what the airlines would argue). Denying the applicant with more valuable flight experience is an emotional decision.

And, BTW, I didn't have to "eat sh1t", I refused to. Luckily for the airlines, there are always guys like you ready to eat plenty, and are even willing to pay for the privilege. That's the saddest part, and why regional pilots make less than bus drivers.

I know you'd love to lump me in with PFT/PFJs, but I would never pay for a job, or work for low wages. But that's just a personal decision, and I would never hold PFT/PFJ against someone. Experience is experience.

Now you're grasping for why regional pilots earn less than bus drivers. Yes, it is due to a glut of pilots willing to accept low wages. Of course, you didn't carry your argument to it's logical extent. Why are pilots willing to accept low wages? Might it have something to do with the excellent wages offered at the majors? And might those protected wages have something to do with unions? Hmm, makes you wonder who is really at fault here.

 

[jppt2000]

For clarification, what I said was:

1) The CP at my first 135 threw GIA resumes into the garbage can or put them on the wall of shame because "These guys made a paying job disappear".

2) The CP at my first jet 135 showed guys the door who offered to "work for free to get experience".

Hey Ty,
I hope you don't say that crap to the Captains you fly with.
I personally know 6 Captains at your airline who came from GIA

Bobby,
I've read so much of your sad story, it repeats, over and over and over,............

Sounds like sour grapes to me........

 

[bobbysamd]

Thanks . . . .

Bobby,
I've read so much of your sad story, it repeats, over and over and over,............

Sounds like sour grapes to me........

And I thank you for continuing to read my "sad" story. At least you are reading it. Maybe others will, too, and grasp my message.

 

[bobbysamd]

Non-sequiturs

We're talking about applicants who are legally qualified and are willing to compete with more experienced pilots by working at a reduced wage or paying for the seat. You seem to think that competition stops with experience, but neglect to consider the effect that pricing has on labor demand.

(emphasis added)

I feel the frustration that others are feeling when trying to discuss this issue with you. Working at a reduced wage has nothing, zippo, zilch to do with paying for a job. Your last sentence is a non-sequitur to the issue. That issue is not working for a particular wage; it is paying for a job.

I'm hungry, so I buy food. PFT/PFJs need hours, so they buy a seat or work for low wages.

Another non-sequitur . . . .

They don't want to CFI or freight dog for years in order to get hours.

My hankie is drenched with tears!

Once more, folks, violins, anyone? You assert that these people are willing to work - yet they do not want to be humdrum flight instructors or freight pilots. They must be stars or something. Do they not do windows as well?

If someone is truly willing to work, he/she would be willing to take any job. In aviation, any job that might get him/her near airplanes and near people who could help him/her fly airplanes. Not to pull rank on you because of age, but when I was young and starting out in broadcasting I would have been delighted to take any job that got me into a radio station. I worked hard to get it, but I got lucky and got such a job. The idea was to get my foot in the door in the business and build experience. To follow your way of thinking, for broadcasting, I should have accepted nothing less than morning or afternoon drive in New York. If I couldn't get that, I should have paid the radio station to go on the air.

Broadcasting, as Timebuilder might also tell you, is very similar to aviation. Plenty of people want to be on the air, but there are too few radio stations and, with few exceptions, most pay poorly.

Trust me, there are plenty of new pilots who would give anything to be CFIs and freight pilots later. I remember when I was first setting out to build a professional career that there was this outfit at the airport that operated two CV-240s. These aircraft transported Wall Street Journals from PWA to Memphis five nights a week. I wrote them letters, went over to talk and tried hard to get a chance just to ride with them. No dice. I would have loved a chance with them. I loved hearing those radial engines at night.

I think part of the P-F-T problem is so many young people are not truly willing to work. I tell ya, it's a different generation out there . . . .

 

[jppt2000]

And I thank you for continuing to read my "sad" story. At least you are reading it. Maybe others will, too, and grasp my message.

Yup,
Bobby, If you want my pity, you have it.
It seems to me that you are trying to make yourself feel better for not getting on with a commuter or regional.

After reading many of your posts. I imagine it has to do with something far more than your age and qualifications.

Many people your age and qualifications went the distance and got on with regionals.

Many are Captains and Check Airmen.

Maybe some PFT folks were on your interview board.

Bobby it all comes down to how bad you want the job.

You seem to have developed a reputation for PFT bashing.

This debate is a waste of time and energy. :

 

[bobbysamd]

Pity

Bobby, If you want my pity, you have it.
It seems to me that you are trying to make yourself feel better for not getting on with a commuter or regional.

After reading many of your posts. I imagine it has to do with something far more than your age and qualifications.

Please elucidate on your theory.

Many people your age and qualifications went the distance and got on with regionals.

Many are Captains and Check Airmen.

How old were they when they were hired? Many more were not hired. I have documented several instances of age discrimination. People on this board who have experienced age discrimination have spoken out. We have an H.R. expert with years of aviation and other experience (on our side) who has admitted that age discrimination exists in hiring. I have backed all this up with legal authority which supports age discrimination in aviation hiring.

Please note that I did not initiate an age discrimination discussion, but these comments demand a response.

Maybe some PFT folks were on your interview board.

My interviews were in the early '90s, before P-F-T was in full swing. I do not recall any full-blown boards, so there goes your theory.

I recall one-on-one interviews with a Mesa VP who did not like me asking about RJs, a two-on-two interview with a WestAir Chief Pilot and line pilot, a one-on-one with a Comair Chief Pilot, no pilot-on-pilot interview at American Eagle, and a pilot-on-pilot minute at Express I. I am not kidding by a "minute." He asked me two questions at that cattle call.

Bobby it all comes down to how bad you want the job.

Not badly enough to buy it. No job, in aviation or elsewhere, is worth buying. It is still just a job.

You seem to have developed a reputation for PFT bashing.

See comment above. Never mind my other posts about flight instructing, aviation, flying in general, flight school discussions/decisions, college discussions/decisions, union and other discussions. They don't count?

This debate is a waste of time and energy.

So, why do you participate? Why do others participate? Why do they start? And why do you keep reading my posts?

This reminds me of when I was in radio. We had one host who some found to be abrasive. People always said, "I cannot stand to listen to Mr. P----. He never lets anyone talk, etc." These people were asked why they listened to his show. They always said, "I wouldn't dare miss his show!" He probably had more listeners than anyone else at that time. I just write about my experiences. In that spirit, thanks again for your continued reading of my posts and your comments, in whatever spirit you intend them.

 

[secks]

Re: Non-sequiturs

(emphasis added)

I feel the frustration that others are feeling when trying to discuss this issue with you. Working at a reduced wage has nothing, zippo, zilch to do with paying for a job. Your last sentence is a non-sequitur to the issue. That issue is not working for a particular wage; it is paying for a job.

I disagree. Paying for a job and working at a reduced wage are the same animal from a labor economics standpoint. When you offer to perform a service at a substandard wage, you are offering not only your ability, but the opportunity to save your employer money. The same goes for paying for a job. A person's lack of competitive experience can be compensated with money up front rather than only offering a reduced wage. It all amounts to employer savings in the end. These seemingly distinct actions are merely two blips on a spectrum of economic concessions made by applicants.

My hankie is drenched with tears! ... Once more, folks, violins, anyone?

I'd like to see you make that sort of a fecetious argument in front a jury. The next time an airline pilot complains about earning a mere $50k per year, or the way PFTs ruin the industry, I'll keep your "argument" in mind.

You assert that these people are willing to work - yet they do not want to be humdrum flight instructors or freight pilots. They must be stars or something. Do they not do windows as well?

If someone is truly willing to work, he/she would be willing to take any job. In aviation, any job that might get him/her near airplanes and near people who could help him/her fly airplanes. Not to pull rank on you because of age, but when I was young and starting out in broadcasting I would have been delighted to take any job that got me into a radio station. I worked hard to get it, but I got lucky and got such a job. The idea was to get my foot in the door in the business and build experience. To follow your way of thinking, for broadcasting, I should have accepted nothing less than morning or afternoon drive in New York. If I couldn't get that, I should have paid the radio station to go on the air.

Broadcasting, as Timebuilder might also tell you, is very similar to aviation. Plenty of people want to be on the air, but there are too few radio stations and, with few exceptions, most pay poorly.

Right. So you're actually suggesting that a person who desires to fly heavies should be more than happy to clean aviation latrines for a few years in an effort to pay dues? This is not a rational argument.

As to your broadcasting analogy: Yes, if you had the means to buy a seat on the air, then why not? You'd basically be buying a radio station, which is not unheard of. Again, it's about the sacrifices you're willing to make for a career, including financial ones.

We both agree that aviation takes hard work, money, and sacrifice. The crux of the argument is exactly what constitutes work. You submit that a job is no longer "work" when you pay an employer for that job. If you read above, I make a good argument for why paying for a job and working at a reduced wage are basically equivalent. Thus, if you accept that argument, then PFT/PFJ is still "work", and should satisfy those of you who demand that pilots "pay their dues".

Also, I don't see how paying for an aviation job is any different than buying time on an aircraft or starting up your own company where you fly aircraft. The only difference is whether you're undercutting another pilot, which I think we've agreed is not relevant here.

 

[bobbysamd]

Non-sequiturs

Paying for a job and working at a reduced wage are the same animal from a labor economics standpoint. When you offer to perform a service at a substandard wage, you are offering not only your ability, but the opportunity to save your employer money.

That is preposterous. Some jobs simply do not pay much money. No "concessions" are being made. Once more, pay-for-training is an employment and hiring issue only.

So you're actually suggesting that a person who desires to fly heavies should be more than happy to clean aviation latrines for a few years in an effort to pay dues? This is not a rational argument.

Not a rational argument to whom? To you? Have you ever heard of the term, "entry-level job?" Once again, and I will not repeat it, flight schools and other training providers graduate dozens of pilots who would be happy to (1) flight instruct, (2) fly freight, and (3) fly corporate, which can involve cleaning latrines (and even flight planning), to get the opportunity to build experience to make them eligible to fly heavies or whatever.

I think the problem here is this gentleman, and perhaps others, feel they are too good to take entry-level jobs.

As to your broadcasting analogy: Yes, if you had the means to buy a seat on the air, then why not? You'd basically be buying a radio station, which is not unheard of. Again, it's about the sacrifices you're willing to make for a career, including financial ones.

(emphasis added)

Got a million or two to spare for some 250-watt coffee pot in East Armpit? Radio stations do not "sell seats." Many radio stations offer internships, which get your foot in the door. Internships, generally, were not offered thirty-four years ago. You cannot compare internships to P-F-T.

I would not expect you to know anything about broadcasting, but there are those who will buy radio stations just to be on the air, because they want to be on the air so badly. Probably because they were not good enough to be hired.

The crux of the argument is exactly what constitutes work. You submit that a job is no longer "work" when you pay an employer for that job.

That is not what I said. Read what I wrote again. To save you the effort, for the final time, I stated, in my opinion, that no job is worth buying from an employer.

As I have written elsewhere, after having worked for years and having been taken advantage of by employers and/or simply been screwed by them, you learn to appreciate the value of fair treatment by an employer. P-F-T signifies from the beginning that you will tolerate unfair treatment. I cannot comprehend why this is so difficult to understand.

You lower yourself by paying for a job. Of course, if that's what you want to do . . . . I knew plenty of people in radio who pulled down their pants and bent over. But, it still boils down to it being just a job.

Also, I don't see how paying for an aviation job is any different than buying time on an aircraft or starting up your own company where you fly aircraft. The only difference is whether you're undercutting another pilot, which I think we've agreed is not relevant here.

Nothing wrong with starting a business to build hours and experience. Many pilots have purchased airplanes and instructed in them to build experience. By the way, that is not the same as buying a radio station and putting yourself on the air because no one will hire you.

<Sigh>